Friday 29 June 2012

The censored MoJ Video is back!

If you saw this post on my blog earlier in the week  by the brilliant Benefits and Work site 


Well, if you click on the link to youtube now, the kind, supportive video has disappeared. Again

Grayling demanded the video was removed from the Ministry of Justice's website months ago, but a few days ago, it reappeared. It seemed the MoJ had decided they could and would show it after all.

Thousands of campaigners shared the video online. The last time I checked nearly 9000 people had watched it, but it could have been more in the end.

What was so striking for me though, was how shocked people were about how nice the video is. We are so used to being called "stock" or "scrounger", "lazy" or "feckless" ("festering" was my favourite by a whisker though I think) No-one quite believed a government department produced a video that sounded like they....cared?

So, without further ado, the hawk-eyed @AzuriteEnigma has found another on youtube here

By sharing the link, we can carry on sharing a very helpful, reassuring video that anyone appealing a benefit decision ought to get a chance to watch.

I am honestly racking my brains on this one, but I the only reason I can't think of to remove the video, is because it's too nice. Stay classy Chris Grayling


  1. I think the reason it keeps disappearing is that the niceness positively encourages people to actually appeal an ESA decision that has gone against them, and we all know who is footing bill for the wrong decisions ATOS have made, yes that is right, the Government.

  2. Actually the government doesn't foot the bill for esa appeals - taxpayers do. governments only facilitate the transfer of public funds to private firms to ensure that we,the public pay twice or three times for shoddy services. this happens right across the 'public' sector wherever services are outsourced to profiteers.

    You'd think that the taxpayers alliance and others would be demanding better value for money from these setups but no- it's just more blaming the poor. Not entirely sure when war on poverty became war on the poor but it's a war we are surely losing.

  3. Not to mention the fact that helpful and accessible advice might well improve the chances of appeals succeeding - a positively irresponsible move by the MoJ in the current economic climate!

  4. Just in case it disappears again, I've put a copy up in Church Action on Poverty's YouTube channel:

    Feel free to link to it if it's helpful.

    Good luck!

    Liam, Church Action on Poverty

  5. Thanks Liam, if it goes again, I'll just keep posting 'em xx

    1. Still worried that we have no press and all my health workers are very purse lipped good work sue my wife and i admire you ile jus call myself chris if i contact u

  6. Don't just watch it - download it; if it comes down to it, we can share it samizdat-style.

  7. Funny how the video says the exact opposite of what happens at my local tribunal, we've got a bigot who is a judge. He loves interrupting people, ignoring their evidence, and has a piss poor overturn record.

    Shame I can't record the tribunals and put up my own video of what me and my peers are putting up with here.

  8. Thers another copy on my youtube video channel

    N.B. To Mr Grayling. Never EVER piss off a gay man!! E.V.E.R.!!!

  9. fantastic liam, greedland, can suck on that .i hope the campaign has doubled in affect to achieve its goal of going viral. is greedland getting amyl nitrate on his expense accont? not so much free willy ,but a big nob. steve .

  10. So, a mildly helpful video is repeatedly pulled. Are we to assume, therefore, that those responsible for its censorship actively want vulnerable and desperate people to commit suicide? I think we should be told. Over to you, Mr Grayling, allegedly.

  11. has a thread on this, it includes the FOI e-mails just recd.

    "Using the Freedom of Information Act, I have received further copies of emails and a letter about the DWP’s attempts to supress the video on YouTube. Readers can draw their own conclusions, but it is of real concern that the DWP has been trying to influence this public information film and make it less encouraging for appellants. Names of civil servants have been redacted."